Does a jury need to agree on the theory of guilt of direct participation or aiding and abetting?

We find indirect support for our thesis in People v. Davis, supra, 8 Cal.App.4th at pages 44, 45, 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 381. The jury there was also faced with determining guilt on a theory which could rest on derivative liability. The evidence also supported, however, a finding of direct participation in the crime. The court determined that so long as the jury agreed on ultimate guilt, it was not necessary that it reach unanimity on the theory (direct participation or aiding and abetting). In refusing to require instructions or agreement on the theory of guilt, the court stated: "We conclude the complexity of the law and the complexity of criminal conduct make any other position so potentially instructionally difficult, and complicated, and so potentially confusing to jurors that any other rule is, as a practical matter, unacceptable." (Id. at p. 44, 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 381.)